Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 18, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3106 Cindy ancl Brad McDonnell, Continued) Mrs. McDonnell stated they are willing to reduce a portion of the driveway. McDonnell stated the total driveway is 832 square feet. Leslie inquired when the house was constructed. Mrs. McDonnell stated in 1978. Leslie commented the safety issues associated with an uncovered entry do not appear to be a high priority since it has existed for over 20 years. Leslie stated if the Plam1ing Commission is requiring other applicants to comply with structural coverage, this application is no different. Mr. McDom1ell stated people have fallen on that landing and that the uncovered enh-y is also dripping water down by the foundation of the residence. Mrs. McDonnell stated in her view they do not have an option and that the safety of their children and other visitors to their residence is a priority. McDonnell cmmnented they do not have many options. Winkey commented he does not really see a hardship in this situation and that the Planning Commission needs to remain consistent. Winkey noted the hardcover in the 75'-250' zone is almost double what is allowed and that there should be major reductions in the hardcover. Winkey commented the main issue is the structural coverage. Mr. McDom1ell reiterated that a number of people have fallen on this landing. Winkey stated the area could be shoveled and salted. Mr. McDonnell indicated the area is wood and is very slippe1-y when wet. Winkey stated in his opinion the issue is the amount of shuctural coverage on the lot. Bremer stated in her view this application is different than an application for a garage due to the safety considerations, but noted other applicants have been required to reduce their plans down to the bare minimum in order to comply with the structural coverage limit. Bremer stated she would like to see further reductions in hardcover, which the applicants have indicated they are willing to do. Bremer stated she would be in favor of the 76 feet but that aesthetics is not a hardship. Jurgens inquired whether the applicants are willing to work with the 80 feet. Jurgens pointed out 80 square feet would allow an 8' by 10' landing, which is easier to consh·uct. Mrs. McDonnell indicated they would be willing to redesign their plans to meet the 80 square feet. Fritzler stated in his view a safe covered enti-yway could be achieved with 76 or 77 square feet and that reductions in hardcover nonnally are not exchanged for additional structural coverage. PAGE30